If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

T O P I C     R E V I E W toughguy12 I'd like to know your opinion. Do you think the crusades were good or bad? ------------------ toughguy12 Erik Schmidt I find it difficult to see war, in some cases outright slaughter of civilians(called genocide),as being good. The crusades were just expansionist lust for new lands, conveniently wrapped in a veil of religious justification. The only positive I can see from them was the creation of quite a number of magnificent castles in and around the holy lands. But they cannot make up for the untold human suffereing that was inflicted during these times. You should read some of the accounts of what went on, they'll make your stomach churn, although I can't cite a reference off hand. I am curious. Can you find reasons that the crusades might be considered 'good'. It would be interesting to see what picture you had in your mind of what the crusades were, because history can easily be seen from various points of view. Merlin Me too, I can't find anything 'good' in the history of the crusades, although they gave very important and iunteresting influences to castle-architecture in europe. The crusades are a classical example of a still actual political pattern: The externalizing of conflicts. The time from the late 11th century to the late 13th century in europe was a time of permanent changes in society, political instability and a long conflict between pope and emperor. Large groups of poor people moved through the kingdoms, robbing vilages and merchantmen. Secondsons of noblemen who did not want to become a monk or priest were looking for a possiblity to gain some wealth. The roman church was in a cruel fight with many haeretic groups and very afraid that it could loose it's mighty position. So Pope Urban and Bernard de Clairvaux had many other interests then to free the holy land when they called for the first crusade. The damage was imense: It was not only a desaster from the military point of view, but also poisened the relationship between europe and the arabic world for many centuries to come (with some effects that can still be seen today). The crusades also helped to weeken the roman empire of Constantinople to a grade that it couldn't survive the two centuries after. But that's only my point of view. I'm sure you'll still find many fierce christians who still think it was a holy enterprise. duncan My feelings are that "Nothing ever changes", but to point a finger many people World Wide think it was the money lenders that caused the Crusades to happen. Due to the sensitive nature of that topic I will not indulge in a discussion here in CQ. I'm sure if some one wishes a further explanation the library can and will provide a more in depth look into the facts of politics and economics. ------------------ Megan and Ralph Castle Duncan The Construction Site "Till Necessitie and Not Fill Decore" Peter Just this week, in a blurb from someone to join an Historical Book Club. Was a new book called 'The First Crusade'. This dealt with the theory that the first Crusade was from the East ! Might have made interesting reading had I joined the club. I might add that there were more forces at work during the so called Crusades, than just European ones. Merlin How unrealistic and ridicoulos the whole thing became in the 13th century you can also see by the fact that Konradin, Earl of Schwaben, son of King Konrad IV. and last one of the royal family of Hohenstaufen, still held the title 'King of Jerusalem' when he was sentenced to death and liquidated by the Duc d'Anjou on the marketplace of Naples in 1268, with the full agreement of the pope. Konradin never saw the holy land. toughguy12 Anyway, there are some things I think were good about the crusades. One good ending is that the people in Europe wanted more of the spices that the crusaders brought back, therefore increasing trade in Europe. The second good reason is that the church saw the crusades as one of the best ways to spread Christianity. Also, people say that the general knowledge of the common feudal man grew after the crusaders heard Arabic love poetry, music, and literature. Because of this, men tended to treat women better. This contrasted in men generally thinking women were inferior. There are a lot of good things because of the crusades!! Because of the crusades, Europe headed into the Renaissance. Another effect of the crusades was the great transfer of military knowledge and techonolofy. Lastly, people now had their eyes open to the world. Before the crusades, most people didn't know what existed beyond their manor. [This message has been edited by toughguy12 (edited 04-23-2002).] Merlin I don't agree in most of you points. • The crusades as a good way to spread christianity: To spread a religion with the help of a war is, in my opinion, a very bad way but has been chosen by the roman church not only in that case. And if the spreading of christianity in its catholic version is a good thing is also an open question... • Contacts between the european, byzantine and arabic world were'nt down to zero before the crusades began. Already the merovingian kings of the 6th and 7th century sent diplomats to Conastantinople, Jerusalem and Bagdad, and these peacefull relations have been intensified under Charlemagne and the later carolingian emperors. It may be positive that some crusaders learnt more about foreign countries, but many of them were so impressed by the wealth of cities like Constantinopolis that they knew nothing better then to plunder, burn, kill and rape the place and its inhabitants. Very christian behaviour, indeed... Erik Schmidt Toughguy, I'm sorry, but I also do not agree with the points you have set forth. The spice trade had existed for a long time before the crusades and if it had decreased, it did not need a war to revive it. Killing your suppliers doesn't make for good trade. On the point of spreading Roman Catholic Dogma as supposed 'chirstianity', I have travelled through much of the holy land, Israel, as well as some of the surrounding areas held by the Crusaders, Jordan and Turkey, and have seen no evidence of any spread of 'christianity' in the local arab populations. They are still predominantly muslim. Another very important point to consider is that, even in Roman times, there was a significant christian population in Jerusalem. Christianity had already been in the holy land well before the crusaders arrived, and in fact there are accounts of the crusaders slaughtering the arab, as well as christian and jewish inhabitants, of towns who resisted them. Just like today, wars needed a good reason(lie) which is acceptable to the people, and in the case of the crusades, "spreading christianity" was it. I don't know about the flow of culture and respect for women form the crusades, but it's a bit hard to say that sending wave after wave of people to kill, plunder, destroy rape and occupy a foreign land is a good way for civilisation to grow in it's cultural depth. As an analogy, would you think it a positive thing if a person walks into a library, kills some of the librarians and users of the books, then burns the entire sections from biology to the arts, smashes most of the furniture, but when eventually driven out of the building has a single book about romance under his arm? I think not! It's old theory that Europe derived so much inspiration from Asia and the Arab countires, and you certainly cannot say that "Because of the crusades, Europe headed into the Renaissance". I would love to see the proof. The two events are seperated by 300-400 years. Once again, I can't see how buring and plundering the very thing that is supposed to inspire you, is a superior and positive way of deriving ideas from a culture. The main point I guess is that, no matter if something positive was derived from the crusades, they were a cruel, savage and destructive series of attempts at conquest. It is especially more pointless to hold up any positive things derived from the crusades when the same, or even better, positive outcomes could have come from peaceful diplomacy, trade and travel. Erik Gordon Unfortunately the record of the Catholic Church in those days was less about spreading the word, and more about personal ambition by the disinherited. Most men who joined the church were the landless second sons of noblemen or wealthy landowners who had little chance of gaining a share of the family wealth. The feudal system tended to operate in such a way that acquisitiveness on the part of the family was to the fore, and dividing an inheritance divided the power gained by the father. Remember that in those days wealth was not always about actual monetary quantity, but as much about the manpower which a lord could call upon when required. A well chosen marriage or allegiance were well used methods of increasing your landholding, and what more powerful allegiance than the church? A churchman may not have held the land personally, but looked supervised it for his leaders in Rome, but you can bet he felt the benefit personally. Eric is right, spreading Christianity and the protection of the holy sites were the propagandists reasons for the crusades, but the individual participants were in it for personal gain...either in gaining estaes in the Holy Land, or for political favour from the Popes, who were always amongst the most powerful and influential polititians in the medieval world....after all they held the ultimate weapon of excommunication, and one who is not recognized by God, cannot receive burial, marriage, baptism or any chuch service....and essentially, could not hold property of his own...if you were excommunicate, you did not exist! It was the misuse of this power, or the jealousy of it which ultimately led to the Reformation across Europe, when many Protestant churches were formed, disempowering Rome, and crucially denuding it of it's vast lands in each country, which of course the nobility divided amongst itself. ------------------ 'Demeure par la verite' Visit; Gordon's Scottish Castles Resource Page Erik Schmidt I just stumbled upon this figure, although I don't know from where it was sourced. "In 1099, the Crusaders sacked Jerusalem, killing 40,000." And you can guess they weren't all soldiers. In fact, judging from the size of the old city of Jerusalem, that would have had to have been all the inhabitants of the city at the time. Merlin Right, and Jerusalem was by far not the only city they sacked at that time... Ever heard of the 'childrens-crusade' of 1212? Thousends of children from europe tried to get to the holy land, but the crusade ended in Marseille, where they have been becieved by some very evil dealers who brought them to Alexandria instead of Jerusalem on sold them all as slaves. Erik Schmidt No, I hadn't heard of that before Merlin. I wonder what happened to them and their decendants? White slaves in the Middle East, interesting. Gordon All through the crusades, and even later when the Turks were attacking Malta and parts of mainland Europe into the 15thc, the captives from both sides were commonly used as slaves, military captives as galley slaves, and civilians wherever they could be sold. When you consider that most of the Knights of Malta were second or third sons of some of the wealthier noble houses of Europe, then the Turks had some very high born galley slaves. Trade in human beings was commonplace in these times, so Merlins story could be seen as someone taking what was seen at the time as advantage of a legitimate entrepreneurial opportunity of the time! [This message has been edited by Gordon (edited 05-02-2002).] Merlin Just found a superb link with many historical sources from that time, translated into english. There's also more about the 'childrens crusade' I mentioned: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html toughguy12 Gee..... I guess I was wrong..... ------------------ A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man, That fro the tyme that he first bigan, To ryden out, he loved chivalrye, Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisye. --- The Canterbury Tales Erik Schmidt It was an interesting topic. I'm happy you asked. I'm sure some peneficial ideas could have been adopted from the holy land, but they could never justify the crusades. You could look at it like this; Contact with the arab world was a good thing and the crusades were the worst possible means of contact. Erik Llywelyn Greetings, Well, here I go again. Though I believe Christians should be as none confrontational as is reasonable.(thus meaning that some wars are not good and others are not bad) There were some good things that did come out of the Crusades. But as usual you have the good, the bad, and the ugly. I think that one thing is that peoples views were expanded. People did start to become less tied to their lord and his manor. This did not happen over night though. The crusades took place over many years and so did the evolution of the feudal system. This was also coupled with the blackdeath. With in some cases half or 3/4 of the people in a town dying unemployment went to almost nil. And workers begain to demand higher wages as a result of it. In England there was actually a law resricting how high a person could charge for their service. This ended up giving more freedom to the "serfs". Along with this came the crusaders which brought back stories and riches from the east.(especially in the first crusade which was really the only succesful one) Llywelyn NAN I DON'T BELIVE THE CRUSADES WERE GOOD FOR ANYTHING-IT WAS JUST FOR SOME WACOS WHO WANTED TO KILL THEMSELFS!!! Llywelyn Greetings, hmm, well NAN, I am afraid that is a rather closed view of the Crusades. Though they rather failed in their purpose, they were not a bunch of maniacs who were on a suicide mission. If you read my post above in the light, not of the succes of the crusades themselves, but what they did for Europe in general and how they effected society on a broader skeem. I think you will change your mind a bit. Llywelyn Gordon Nan, your comments are made with a complete lack of understanding of the era of the crusades. People in those days devoutly believed in the glory of their god, and fought for that...as well as some personal earthly reward. You really should read a bit more before making such off the cuff remarks, you are simply displaying your own lack of knowledge. Once you've read up a bit on your history come back and justify your remarks.........oh,... IT'S RUDE TO SHOUT! Regular web users find it offensive to use block capitals except when grammar calls for them. ------------------ 'Demeure par la verite' Visit; Gordon's Scottish Castles Resource Page

Home Introduction Castle Quest Site of the Day Castle Tours Castle Collections New Sites Popular Sites

Photo Archive Miscellaneous Castles for Kids Castle Glossary Palaces & Homes Medieval Studies Accommodations Top Rated

Castle Postcards Heraldry Links Myths & Legends Organizations Castle Books Abbeys & Churches Weapons/Supplies Random Site

Add A Castle Site Acknowledgements Search Options Please Help Us! Please Link To Us Contact Us

Castles on the Web Copyright 1995- | Privacy Policy